CNN Fake News

[scherzkeks]

hairykrishna said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Conceptually interesting site. Snopes for politics (and a few other tossers ).

Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.

That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.

I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.

Not sure what you mean - they launched 10 years ago. They have analysis of Obamas and Hillarys comments along with a lot of other people.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/

Propaganda. Funded by a major Clinton Foundation/anti-Trump superpac donor, and the subject of much criticism over the years. About as useful as the WP "fact checker." If you have not figured it out by now, chances are slim you will.

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

Propaganda. Funded by a major Clinton Foundation/anti-Trump superpac donor, and the subject of much criticism over the years. About as useful as the WP "fact checker." If you have not figured it out by now, chances are slim you will.

Feel free to point out where they're fact checking is wrong?

[Zod]

scherzkeks said:

hairykrishna said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Conceptually interesting site. Snopes for politics (and a few other tossers ).

Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.

That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.

I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.

Not sure what you mean - they launched 10 years ago. They have analysis of Obamas and Hillarys comments along with a lot of other people.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/

Propaganda. Funded by a major Clinton Foundation/anti-Trump superpac donor, and the subject of much criticism over the years. About as useful as the WP "fact checker." If you have not figured it out by now, chances are slim you will.

instead of posting your usual crap, why not point out which of their assertions are false?

[Zod]

5ohmustang said:

Deemed offensive really Piston heads? Which butter cup did I offend now?

The truth hurts doesn't it libtards.

Poor little snowflake!

[toastybase]

Category 7. That's the call for the chopper

[Countdown]

scherzkeks said:

Propaganda. Funded by a major Clinton Foundation/anti-Trump superpac donor, and the subject of much criticism over the years. About as useful as the WP "fact checker." If you have not figured it out by now, chances are slim you will.

"subject of much criticism" by loons is a badge of honour.

Politifact are quite happy to report on HRC's lies just as much as anybody else's. It's just that Trump lies so much more...

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-cl...

[Goaty Bill 2]

Countdown said:

scherzkeks said:

Propaganda. Funded by a major Clinton Foundation/anti-Trump superpac donor, and the subject of much criticism over the years. About as useful as the WP "fact checker." If you have not figured it out by now, chances are slim you will.

"subject of much criticism" by loons is a badge of honour.

Politifact are quite happy to report on HRC's lies just as much as anybody else's. It's just that Trump lies so much more...

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-cl...

"Funded by a major Clinton Foundation/anti-Trump superpac donor"
Can anyone name names?


""subject of much criticism" by loons is a badge of honour. "
Maybe. Sometimes.
There are a lot of "loons" out there on both sides of these arguments.


"Politifact are quite happy to report on HRC's lies just as much as anybody else's. It's just that Trump lies so much more..."

They have most certainly evaluated more statements by/about Trump than by/about Hillary, but that doesn't quite prove that point does it?
If, as scherzkeks states, and you appear to confirm to a degree, the 'right'/'crazy right'/Trump supporters don't trust the site, then it's unlikely they (crazy right) would bother posting suggestions, aside from which, we don't know how much of what is sent is ignored.

That last is not intended an accusation, simply a caution, as we simply can't know.
By default, I would presume they probably list everything that can be factually proven to have been said (and reported to them), giving them the benefit of the doubt, but with a watchful eye.

[jjlynn27]

They listed 'facts' by both Trump and Hillary (and others for that matter). Why does it matter who funds them? Anyone can verify every single one of those listings if they wish. I've checked random few (targeting different people) and they all came out as stated.

[hairykrishna]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

They have most certainly evaluated more statements by/about Trump than by/about Hillary, but that doesn't quite prove that point does it?
If, as scherzkeks states, and you appear to confirm to a degree, the 'right'/'crazy right'/Trump supporters don't trust the site, then it's unlikely they (crazy right) would bother posting suggestions, aside from which, we don't know how much of what is sent is ignored.

That last is not intended an accusation, simply a caution, as we simply can't know.
By default, I would presume they probably list everything that can be factually proven to have been said (and reported to them), giving them the benefit of the doubt, but with a watchful eye.

I originally posted the site in response to you saying you weren't aware of any specific proven lies by Trump. That site points out plenty which can be checked independently. I don't think it really matters what their bias is or how it's manifested in the number of facts they check per person.

[Goaty Bill 2]

hairykrishna said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

They have most certainly evaluated more statements by/about Trump than by/about Hillary, but that doesn't quite prove that point does it?
If, as scherzkeks states, and you appear to confirm to a degree, the 'right'/'crazy right'/Trump supporters don't trust the site, then it's unlikely they (crazy right) would bother posting suggestions, aside from which, we don't know how much of what is sent is ignored.

That last is not intended an accusation, simply a caution, as we simply can't know.
By default, I would presume they probably list everything that can be factually proven to have been said (and reported to them), giving them the benefit of the doubt, but with a watchful eye.

I originally posted the site in response to you saying you weren't aware of any specific proven lies by Trump. That site points out plenty which can be checked independently. I don't think it really matters what their bias is or how it's manifested in the number of facts they check per person.

Yes, thank you, that was helpful.

[scherzkeks]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Countdown said:

scherzkeks said:

Propaganda. Funded by a major Clinton Foundation/anti-Trump superpac donor, and the subject of much criticism over the years. About as useful as the WP "fact checker." If you have not figured it out by now, chances are slim you will.

"subject of much criticism" by loons is a badge of honour.

Politifact are quite happy to report on HRC's lies just as much as anybody else's. It's just that Trump lies so much more...

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-cl...

"Funded by a major Clinton Foundation/anti-Trump superpac donor"
Can anyone name names?

Pierre Omidyar.

I am also a lefty, BTW.

[rscott]

Oh dear .. Another CNN fake news story - http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/erin-bu... .

Except this one is about Fake News circulated by KellyAnne Conway (again)...

[Countdown]

FAKE FAKE NEWS!! SAD!

[jmorgan]

Move along, nothing to see, alternate universe facts.

[jmorgan]

Looks like the offending tweet has gone. Conway, well, she should be let loose with no controls. It will be like a random number generator but with facts, or not facts.